S in ESG: Assessment of Social Sustainability in Real Estate - Critical Analysis of Social Taxonomy and Limitations of Certification Systems

This resource is a master’s thesis titled “S in ESG: Assessment of Social Sustainability in Real Estate – Critical Analysis of Social Taxonomy and Limitations of Certification Systems”. It was written by Marianne Sar and submitted at Technische Universität Wien (TU Wien), with supervision by Mag. Alexander Bosak (MRICS). The thesis examines how the “Social” pillar of ESG is defined, reported, and assessed in the real-estate sector, with a particular focus on how building certification systems capture (or fail to capture) social sustainability.

The thesis argues that sustainability debates in construction and real-estate management still overemphasise environmental topics (e.g., energy efficiency) while social sustainability remains less consistently defined and measured. It highlights why this matters for Europe’s housing and building stock: adults in Central Europe spend around 80% of their time in buildings, which increases the importance of indoor health, safety, and affordability as sustainability outcomes. It also notes the scale of existing sustainability tools (over 600 building sustainability assessments referenced), many of which treat social issues less deeply or omit them entirely.

A central analytical lens is the EU discussion on a potential Social Taxonomy, proposed as an analogue to the Environmental Taxonomy. The thesis summarises the Social Taxonomy’s intended structure (substantial contribution, “do no significant harm”, and minimum safeguards) and its foundations in European and international rights frameworks. It presents three headline social objectives: (1) decent work, (2) adequate living standards and wellbeing, and (3) inclusive and sustainable communities and societies—organised around stakeholder groups such as workers, end users/consumers, and communities.

Using the Austrian ÖGNI system (aligned with DGNB) as the main case, the thesis maps certification criteria to Social Taxonomy goals. It describes ÖGNI’s structure across six quality areas (ecology, economy, sociocultural/functional, technical, process, and site), and notes that ecology, economy, and sociocultural/functional quality are each weighted at 22.5% in the overall assessment. The analysis finds that, while sociocultural and functional quality criteria map well to social aims, many Social Taxonomy sub-goals are not readily captured by building-focused certification metrics.

The thesis reports that out of 45 ÖGNI criteria assessed, 22 can be considered assignable to Social Taxonomy-related social sustainability aspects, while the Social Taxonomy framework referenced comprises 37 sub-goals—implying only partial coverage (about 59%). It concludes that gaps are especially pronounced where social goals are structurally or policy-oriented (e.g., labour rights, pay transparency, due diligence in value chains), rather than directly linked to measurable building attributes. To broaden practical assessment, the thesis explores complementary approaches and benchmarks (including GRESB and social impact scoring models) to help define missing indicators and improve comparability for socially sustainable real-estate strategies.